Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:48:59.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The combined effects of animal species (sheep versus cattle) and level of feeding on digestible and metabolizable energy concentrations in grass-based diets of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

T. Yan ,
R. E. Agnew  and
F. J. Gordon
Get access

Abstract

A total of 317 dairy and beef cattle, offered grass silage-based diets, have been subjected to energy metabolism measurements in calorimetric chambers in 11 feeding experiments at this Institute. In addition the silages (no. = 33) were also given individually to sheep as a sole food at maintenance feeding level for measurement of energy intake and outputs (faeces and urine). The digestible (DE) and metabolizable (ME) energy concentrations of mixed diets for sheep at maintenance were estimated using these measured silage data, predicted silage methane energy output and tabulated energy values of concentrates. The objective of the present study was to use treatment mean data (no. = 59), derived from the cattle (production level) (MEprod or DEprod) and the sheep (maintenance level) (MEmaint or DEmaint), to evaluate the combined effects of animal species and level of feeding on dietary ME or DE concentration. The mean-square prediction error technique and the sensitivity test both indicated that there was little bias derived from the deviation of the slope (line bias) when relating MEprod (DEprod) with cattle to MEmaint (DEmaint) with sheep. Relating feeding level to the decline in ME or DE concentration (from maintenance to production level) revealed that the constant had no significant effect on the relationship, suggesting that there was little difference in dietary ME or DE concentration between sheep and cattle when given food at maintenance. ME d and DE d were significantly related to MEmaint and DEmaint (P < 0001) respectively. These two relationships were however influenced (P < 0001) by level of feeding above maintenance (FL-1). There was little effect of silage DM proportion in the total diets (S/T) on the depression of ME concentration from maintenance to production levels, while this effect on the depression of DE concentration was significant (P < 0001). Therefore, the following two equations are recommended to calculate MEprod and DEprod concentrations respectively for cattle using data obtained with sheep at maintenance. Alternatively, with each unit increase in feeding level above maintenance, dietary ME and DE concentrations respectively were reduced by proportionately 0016 and 0025 for grass silage-based diets, irrespective of the effect of forage proportion on the latter. MEprod = [1 068 - 0019 ✕ (FL-1)] ✕ MEmaint - 0·755 DE d = [0·891 + (-0027 + 0018 ✕ S/T) ✕ (FL-1)] ✕ DEmaint + 1·355

Keywords

cattleenergy consumptiongrass silagesheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 2002 , pp. 141 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aerts, J. V., Boever, J. L. de, Cottyn, B. G., Brabander, D. L. de and Buysse, F. X. 1984. Comparative digestibility of feedstuffs by sheep and cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 12: 47–56.Google Scholar
Agnew, R. E. and Yan, T. 2000. The impact of recent research on energy feeding systems for dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 66: 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1990. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Report number 5. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 60: 729–804.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Hattan, A. J., Cammell, S. B., Humphries, D. J. and Jones, A. K. 2000. Lactation performance and energy utilisation in high yielding cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2000, p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. 1979. Further developments of the metabolisable energy system for ruminants. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 79–91. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. and Clapperton, J. L. 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19: 511–522.Google Scholar
Carrick, I. M., Patterson, D. C., Gordon, F. J. and Mayne, C. S. 1996. The effect of quality and level of protein on the performance of dairy cattle of differing genetic merits. Animal Science 62: 642 (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., MacLeod, G. K., Grovum, W. L., Cahill, L. W. and McMillan, I. 1989. Comparative digestion in sheep and cattle fed different forage to concentrate ratios at high and low intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 1774–1785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, L. E. R. and Steen, R. W. J. 1998. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements of beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131: 477–485.Google Scholar
Es, A. J. H. van. 1975. Feed evaluation for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 2: 95–107.Google Scholar
Ferris, C. P., Gordon, F. J., Patterson, D. C., Porter, M. G. and Yan, T. 1999. The effect of genetic merit and concentrate proportion in the diet on nutrient utilisation by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 132: 483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, C. P., McCoy, M. A., Lennox, S.D., Catney, D. C. and Gordon, F. J. 2002. Nutrient utilisation and energy balance associated with two contrasting winter milk production systems for high genetic merit autumn calving dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research In press.Google Scholar
Flachowsky, G. and Schneider, M. 1992. Influence of various straw-to-concentrate ratios on in sacco dry matter degradability, feed intake and apparent digestibility in ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 38: 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J., Patterson, D. C., Yan, T., Porter, M. G., Mayne, C. S. and Unsworth, E. F. 1995a. The influence of genetic index for milk production on the response to complete diet feeding and the utilization of energy and nitrogen. Animal Science 61: 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J., Porter, M. G., Mayne, C. S., Unsworth, E. F. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1995b. The effect of forage digestibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilisation for lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 62: 15–27.Google Scholar
Honing, Y. van der. 1975. Intake and utilisation of energy of ration with pelleted forages by dairy cows. Agricultural Research Report 836: 1–156.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1991. Associative effects of feeds in ruminants. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5: (suppl. ) 37–57.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Hill, T. M., Carmen, B. R., Branine, M. E., Lodman, D. W. and Ward, G. M. 1991. New perspectives on ruminant methane emissions. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. Wenk, C. and Boessinger, M.) European Association for Animal Production publication no. 58, pp. 376–379. Kartause Ittingen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Mayne, C. S. 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage feeding behaviour and energy utilization by lactating dairy cows offered grass silages with differing intake characteristics. Animal Science 67: 225–236.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S., Fitzpatrick, D. A. and Marsden, M. 1999. The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 68: 763–777.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D. E. 1995. The effects of diet on metabolisable energy utilisation and carcass composition in beef cattle and sheep. Ph. D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast. Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D. E., Steen, R. W. J. and Unsworth, E. F. 1997. The effect of differing forage: concentrate ratio and restricting feed intake on the energy and nitrogen utilisation by beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 51: 151–164.Google Scholar
Lavery, N. P. 1998. A comparison of grazed and conserved grass and concentrate diets in terms of the performance and carcass composition of beef cattle and lambs. Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast. Google Scholar
Moe, P. W. and Tyrrell, H. F. 1979. Methane production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 62: 1583–1586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mould, F. L. 1988. Associative effects of feeds. In Feed science in world animal science-4B (ed. Ørskov, E. R.), pp. 279–292. Elsevier Science Publishers B V, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Noot, G. W. van der, Cordts, R. H. and Hunt, R. 1965. Comparative nutrient digestibility of silages by cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 24: 47–50.Google Scholar
O’Mara, F. P., Coyle, J. E., Drennan, M. J., Young, P. and Caffrey, P. J. 1999. A comparison of digestibility of some concentrate feed ingredients in cattle and sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 81: 167–174.Google Scholar
Porter, M. G. 1992. Comparison of sample preparation methods for the determination of the gross energy concentration of fresh silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37: 201–208.Google Scholar
Prigge, E. C., Baker, M. J. and Varga, G. A. 1984. Comparative digestion, rumen fermentetion and kinetics of forage diets by steers and wethers. Journal of Animal Science 59: 237–245.Google Scholar
Rook, A. J., Dhanoa, M. S. and Gill, M. 1990. Prediction of the voluntary intake of grass silages by beef cattle. 3. recision of alternative prediction models. Animal Production 50: 455–466.Google Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Greife, H. A. and Armstrong, D. G. 1985. The digestion by cattle of silage-containing diets fed at two dry matter intakes. 1. Digestion of organic matter and nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 691–708.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture. 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock — ruminants. CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Tables of Feed Composition. 1990. UK tables of nutritive value and chemical composition of feedingstuffs (ed. Givens, D. I. and Moss, A. R.), pp. 102–103. Rowett Research Services Ltd, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Südekum, K. H., Röh, H., Brandt, M., Rave, G. and Stangassinger, M. 1995. Comparative digestion in cattle and sheep fed wheat silage diets at low and high intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 1498–1511.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. 1966. Effect of method of forage preservation on the energetic efficiency of lactating cows. Ph. D. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Moe, P. W. 1975. Effect of intake on digestibility efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 1151–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D. G. 1965. Studies on the energy requirements of high producing dairy cows. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. Google Scholar
Woods, V. B., Moloney, A. P., Mulligan, F. J., Kenny, M. J. and O’Mara, F. P. 1999. The effect of animal species (cattle or sheep) and level of intake by cattle on in vivo digestibilty of concentrate ingredients. Animal Feed Science and Technology 80: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T., Agnew, R. E., Gordon, F. J. and Porter, M. G. 2000. The prediction of methane energy output in dairy and beef cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Production Science 64: 253–263.Google Scholar
Yan, T., Gordon, F. J., Agnew, R. E., Porter, M. G. and Patterson, D. C. 1997. The metabolisable energy requirement for maintenance and the efficiency of utilisation of metabolisable energy for lactation by dairy cows offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Production Science 51: 141–150.Google Scholar
Yan, T., Patterson, D. C., Gordon, F. J. and Porter, M. G. 1996. The effects of wilting of grass prior to ensiling on the response to bacterial inoculation. 1. Silage fermentation and nutrient utilization over three harvests. Animal Science 62: 405–417.Google Scholar